New News! Fake News is still fake.

The news media plays a vital role in the way our democracy operates. Without accurate news, citizens are left scrambling to find credible information. The purpose of the news is to help to educate the public in times of elections of their candidates stances on important democratic issues. If the voters are not privy to this information, or, if they are being provided incorrect information, the political parties and their candidates with be falsely represented leading to a lack of popular sovereignty. This is increasingly problematic in the United States as the rise of social media has grown with the rise of misinformation. See below some examples of the top five “fake election stories.”

While there are positive aspects of the rise of social media, such as providing a platform for political discussions and awareness among younger generation, there are several negative aspects as well. One of these is the lack of integrity several news media outlets use. As the book describes, the stories that are in the closest alignment with extreme views or pre-existing beliefs tend to gain the most likes and shares. People do not look for the articles that challenge their beliefs but rather ones that heighten and bolster their preexisting prejudices. When discussing this phenomenon, I was left wondering, who is to blame? And who is responsible to prevent it? Is it up to the social media platforms to regulate the news they share? Is it up to the journalists who write the articles? Or, is it up to the candidates/government to combat the excessive “fake news” that is out there? See below a survey by statista on this issue.

Unfortunately, I do not see this problems going away anytime soon. It is ambiguous to say who is responsible for the influx of the ill-informed news stories, and it is difficult to determine who should work to prevent it. In my opinion, I believe it is the social media sites responsibility to regulate the content they allow on their site. Since they are providing the platform, they should work to diligently monitor the ads and sponsored content their viewers are exposed to.

17 Responses to "New News! Fake News is still fake."

Jennifer Munnings says:

March 19, 2018 at 10:46 am

Thank you for your post,
Fake news is not a new phenomenon, PRAVDA newspaper circulate by the Soviet Union to push government agenda in my opinion highlights the epitome of the basis of fake news. Fake news exists as a result of media presenting speculation as facts, journalistic mistakes and are often used for economic gain. One of the key characteristics of a democracy is freedom of the press, that journalists are not controlled by or responsible to the government. Democracy becomes challenged when the media is used as in PRAVDA as propaganda. Donald Trump uses the term “fake news” to descriptive any media content criticising him, to what extent does this challenge the legitimacy of American democracy? And to what extent does specifically social media exacerbate the presence and power of fake news?
Langley Crisp says:

March 19, 2018 at 2:18 pm

Hi Kelly!

Thank you for your insightful post. I do agree with you that “fake news” is a problem within the media today. Americans must be able to trust the media, at least partially, to deliver news that fosters an environment where democracy can thrive. What I mean by this is that, in order to live in a democracy, the people must be informed about what is going on in government. In order to inform the public, the media is used to bridge the gap between government and the public. If the media is portraying untrue stories as true, this can create an issue with our fundamental democracy.

It is unethical for the news media to put out news stories that are untrue, or fake. James Titcomb, from “The Telegraph” states that, “”Fake news” was not a term many people used 18 months ago, but it is now seen as one of the greatest threats to democracy, free debate and the Western order.”(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/0/fake-news-exactly-has-really-had-influence/) I agree with him wholeheartedly. With technology today, news spreads rapidly. It is a dangerous thing to imagine fake news spreading and causing an irreversible outcry.

However, the fact that news spreads rapidly also perpetuates the concept of fake news. If media outlets do not release stories quickly, other outlets will release that information first, thus leading to a loss of profits for media outlet who waited to release a story. Therefore, the due diligence performed on a story before it is released can become sparse. This creates a detrimental effect for the media society.

While I agree that the news media has a major responsibility to vet the stories they release for the accuracy in the story, it is also the responsibility of the reader to do their own research before believing a story to be true. Of course, there is also the idea that the “gullible consumer” exists and therefore, the entity in charge, in this case the media, must regulate the information they release in order to (to the best of their ability) avoid a reader from believing false information.

While I wish it weren’t true, the media is currently and will probably perpetually be, a biased source of information – a starting point for a reader to do more research on a story.

Again, thanks for your post, Kelly!
Klein Evans says:

March 19, 2018 at 3:08 pm

Kelly,

Thank you for a really well done post. I think your insight on fake news is spot on and I agree with you on a good amount of your points. One of your points that I found the most insightful was when you mentioned how the general public selects not only their source of media but the actual source itself. You point out that people are not looking for articles that challenge their beliefs and views but instead agree and strengthen their existing beliefs. I completely agree with this point, it is human nature for us to remain in our comfort zones instead of challenging ourselves. This concept is directly applicable to the way we consume our media as well.

The only part I do not agree with is who you allocate most of the blame to. The social media sites have to receive this information from someone, and this is who I believe deserves the main chunk of the blame. The politicians and other figures who create and spread this information to the social media sites. I believe that we have to realize that the social media sites are businesses and they are aware that stories provided to them of this nature will make them money and gain more popularity for the site. At the end of the day it may not be right, but it is the culture and reality of what they do.

Thank you again for your post, I enjoyed reading and reflecting upon it.
Holden Powers says:

March 19, 2018 at 11:33 pm

Kelly,

Thank you so much for your insightful post. I find your points on how social media has had an effect on fake news to be very interesting. While I find it difficult for social media platforms like Facebook or Twitter to monitor the information people are posting about, I think their analytics does not help the problem of limiting the spread of fake news. All social media can control what you see based on your demographics, sex, religion, socio-economic level, and political views. As a result, a post which supports your political view might show up on your feed even though the story might be false. As a result, I think social media platforms should have a sign next to the posts which come from “trusted sources” like a NY Times or a Wall Street Journal so you can assume the information you are reading comes from a reputable source. Furthermore, social media platforms need to stop the news feed analytics and just show the most recent information regardless on what side they take. Thank you so much again for this post and I hope we talk about the issues you have brought up in an upcoming class.
Katherine Breed says:

March 19, 2018 at 11:41 pm

Kelly,

Thank you for your post! You bring up a very interesting point. I agree with you that social media sites should be responsible for the content they choose to share. I also don’t think this problem will go away anytime soon. Therefore, it is also up to people to read various news sources and outlets in order to gain a well-rounded view on news. There is no such thing as none bias information anymore. The major media contributors such as The Washington Post and The New York Times have even become, in my opinion, bias favoring one political party. During the coverage of the 2016 election The New York Times was one sided and favored Hilary Clinton, publishing more negative stories about Trump. As consumers of the news it is up to the individual to read various news sources in order to gain the most balanced news they can especially with the rise of “fake news.”

Thanks again for your post, I really enjoyed it!
David Shaw says:

March 20, 2018 at 5:58 pm

Hey Kelly!

Overall this is a strong foundation on which to build an article, and your use of charts was very helpful in illustrating your point. That said, while this is a decent beginning to a discussion, I think there was room to write quite a bit more. After those first two paragraphs of set up, a discussion of prominent fake news sources and how they rose to prominence might have been helpful. Furthermore, your discussion of how the spread of fake news could be stopped could have been extended. While I agree that social media sites should work to filter what news content is shown to members, you don’t illustrate how that is to be done. And I do find it hard to fathom that the blame should fall entirely on them. Surely there are other organizations that could contribute as well. Overall, again, a strong start and I would be curious to see what more you have to say.
Kayla Corbin says:

March 20, 2018 at 11:46 pm

Kelly,

Thanks for the post!

In terms of organization, I think your ideas were understandable and flowed well. I appreciate all the graphics, which made it easy to follow and complimented your post.
Like many have said, “fake news” is not a new phenomenon, however it is a concerning one especially in a democracy such as America’s. In other countries most fake news is categorized as government propaganda, but in America, specifically on social media, the news we consume is mostly curated and controlled by fellow citizens.
Social media is easily accessed and gives virtually anybody with WiFi a platform, there’s obvious reasons for why it’s hard to monitor or control. Anybody can post an article, no matter how false and as long as it interest or exploits people’s feelings then the writer achieves their goal. But like you said, who’s to blame?
Facebook has recently announced efforts to monitor fake news better and try to create a more inclusive rhetoric on their site instead of the divisiveness promoted by most fake news.
I don’t believe the consumer is fully to blame either, but I do believe that people should take responsibility and not share things out of ignorance. That’s why I appreciate that you added the graphic about how to spot a fake post. Maybe it would be helpful if Facebook did an ad campaign on how to spot unreliable sources/fake news.

I’m glad you got me thinking! Thanks for the post!
Samuel Lambeth says:

March 21, 2018 at 1:01 pm

Kelly,

You did a great job with selecting interesting sources to strengthen your argument about who should be held responsible for the spread of false political news. In particular, the incorporated survey questioning whether politicians, the general public, or the social media sites are to blame for, effectively demonstrated that the ideal accountable person or group is subjective to Americans. It’s interesting that you selected social media sites as the primary accountable source for the spread of false media. Since this discussion addresses the american right of being protected from misleading and material false representation, it reminded of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC is responsible for protecting consumers from misleading acts of commerce and unfair competition, such as false advertising. Perhaps, it may be beneficial to America if an unbiased third party government agency protected the media targets from gaining inaccurate political perceptions.
Haley Overlander says:

March 21, 2018 at 1:33 pm

Kelly,

I really appreciate the way you set up your argument. By providing us with these graphs and statistics, it made it much easier to follow along as a reader. I strongly agree with you on the point that ‘fake news’ is not going away anytime soon, in fact, I think it is growing increasingly more popular. One of the greatest problems within our society today is that people are not in search of accurate, honest news stories, but rather they are constantly on the hunt for something exciting and attention grabbing- regardless of the truth behind it. Social media sites have led today’s society to move away from accurate news reports, and rely heavily on social media to gain their ‘news’ updates. The problem with this, however, is that social media often skews the news and twists the truth in order to create a ‘buzz’ for an increased viewer rating.

Hunt Allcott and Matthew Gentzkow wrote a paper on ‘fake news’ for Stanford university in which they state, “following the 2016 election, a specific concern has been the effect of false stories- “fake news,” as it has been dubbed-circulated on social media. Recent evidence shows that: 1) 62 percent of US adults get news on social media (Gottfried and Shearer 2016); 2) the most popular fake news stories were more widely shared on Facebook than the most popular mainstream news stories (Silverman 2016); 3) many people who see fake news stories report that they believe them (Silverman and Singer-Vine 2016); and 4) the most discussed fake news stories tended to favor Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton (Silverman 2016). Putting these facts together, a number of commentators have suggested that Donald Trump would not have been elected president were it not for the influence of fake news (for examples, see Parkinson 2016; Read 2016; Dewey 2016).”

With this information, I believe that the greatest perpetrators of ‘fake news’ are the younger generations that give these stories the attention they need to survive by circulating them, sharing them, and commenting on them. However, what I think the saddest part of it all is, is that ‘many people who see fake news stories report that they believe them.’ With these facts, I believe that our society needs to restructure how social media shares information, facts, and essential data so that we can have a society that is well informed with accurate information in order to properly elect our next government officials. With this said, however, I do not believe that this will be an easy feat for our government given our technologically modernizing society, which will allow for even larger social media outlets and even greater ‘buzz’ to be created.
James Weakley says:

March 21, 2018 at 3:43 pm

Kelly,
I found your blog post on the impact of fake news fascinating and relevant to current events in the US. The statistics you found on the most popular fake news stories shocked me. I knew that I needed to be aware of fake news, but I didn’t have any idea how widespread it has become. I agree that it is extremely unfortunate fake news can corrupt the information voters use to form their political stances. While it is immoral of media outlets to knowingly spread false information, I believe it is the responsibility of the reader to determine the credibility of their source and for private companies to best regulate the information that is posted on their websites. The freedom of press protects the ability of media outlets to produce these stories. The government can not pass laws that enforce fact checking on all media sources. It would greatly restrict the freedoms the government promised to uphold in the first amendment. Self-responsibility is ingrained in American culture from our healthcare system to capitalist economy. Stories media outlets release, unless proven to be hate speech or libel, should not be regulated federally. Social Media websites however as private companies have the right and moral responsibility to best regulate the information spread on their respective sites.
Michael De La Cruz says:

March 21, 2018 at 6:34 pm

Kelly, this is a high-quality post.

It seems that the fake news was really slanted in favor of our current president Donald Trump. In your first picture, it can be seen that the most circulated fake news story on Facebook is about Pope Francis endorsing Donald Trump. Can you imagine how many people’s opinion was slightly altered when they heard that a prominent religious figure endorsed Donald Trump. Some Catholics were sure to have changed their opinion about our president with this fake information.

And then the other four most circulated fake news stories depicted Hilary Clinton in such a negative light. Imagine hearing that the Pope endorsed Donald Trump and then that Hilary Clinton was disqualified from running for office. That would discredit Hilary while portraying Trump in a positive light.

I think the reason we saw so much fake news slanted in favor of Donald Trump is because Russia is one of the main perpetrators of fake news. Donald Trump most likely colluded with Russia to sway the outcome of the election, and for that reason he is indebted to Russia. This can be seen in the fact that he congratulated Putin on his recent victory even though he was strongly encouraged not too.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin/index.html
Thomas Cody says:

March 21, 2018 at 10:10 pm

Kelly,
Thank you for a very interesting post! I agree that this issue of fake news does not seem to be going away anytime soon. I think eventually we are just going to have to take everything we see on the internet with a grain of salt. As fake news takes advantage of the fact that people on the internet are just looking quickly at stories, I think we are all going to have to slow down and make sure what we just read is accurate. Companies such as Google, who just pledged $300 million to fight fake news, do have a responsibility to seek out these fake news stories and eliminate them, but this can only do so much as it is so easy for anyone to publish these fake stories on the internet from anywhere. Eventually, I feel it has to be us as consumers that need to adapt more than anything.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43473938
Everett Harper says:

March 21, 2018 at 10:27 pm

Kelly, thank you for a great post. The data is very relevant and very much helps articulate your argument. I believe that social media plays a huge role in how people interpret the news. I think that people are likely to believe things they see on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. because it is easily accessible and easy to interpret. I also believe that it plays a huge role in how people are influenced by fake news because they can choose to see what they want, and easily believe things on the internet simply because they want to believe it. Social media platforms should have some say in what is allowed to be published based on its credibility which is the most important factor in trusting news sites. I don’t think the social media platforms are necessarily to blame for the proliferation of “fake news”, I just believe that citizens need to be educated further on these topics and should rely on credible news sources with an open mind.
Cassandra Martin says:

March 21, 2018 at 11:27 pm

Kelly,

I found this blog post to be extremely inquisitive and a unique perspective on an issue that isn’t new. I really appreciate the way you go through the process of asking yourself who is to blame for this issue- is it the consumer’s responsibility to verify their sources? Is it the responsibility of government officials to provide clear information to the public? Or is it even the responsibility of journalists and the media to make their reporting foolproof and unbiased?

I think it’s important that all of these parties take steps to ensure that verifiable information is being spread, as that is the only way to ensure that the news media isn’t encroaching upon our popular sovereignty with the unethical interference of other parties. Why I do agree that it lies largely on the shoulders of the media platforms to regulate this information, consumers must realize that this is idyllic and often not the case. Media is a for-profit industry, as we discussed in class. Therefore, the stories that “sell” and get the most viewers or readers will always be the ones that are developed most, even if they are in fact not important. This, in turn, causes embellished details and infotainment.

The only point I wish you would have explored to round out this piece is more of how the current government, particularly the Trump administration, interacts with the media. How much of a threat is it to our popular sovereignty that any unfavorable news stories are simply dismissed as being fake news by President Trump? Again, I like how you brought in the study of engagement rates to popular actual fake news stories, but I wonder how that would compare to new stories that are called fake news but are actually readily verifiable. As you mentioned, this can be further explored by people using biased news stories as a way to reinforce their already one-sided views.

I think this is a great blog post in response to a pressing issue which threatens citizens’ ability to obtain factual information and make educated decisions.
Stephanie Ellicott says:

March 21, 2018 at 11:43 pm

Kelly,

Thanks for your interesting post. The issue of fake news may not be new, however it has become increasingly more prevalent in today’s culture under the Trump administration.

I thought the statistics you provided on the top five “fake election stories” was very interesting. It made me think of all the times I have seen storylines and article titles like those on Facebook and have had to remind myself that it could easily be fake news. At this point, I have a hard time believing anything I read on any social media platforms for that very reason. It just seems that there is an influx of information and whatever has the most eye catching title gets the most readers.

I would definitely have to agree with Langley’s comment in that although it may be important for these social media platforms to monitor what information they are allowing on their sites, it is inevitably up to the readers/users to distinguish between what is fake and “true” news through further research.

Going off that though, I think it is mostly up to politicians to monitor what is being written about them or for them. The reasoning behind this is because a politician is in some ways a personal brand. If they have trademarked that brand then they are going to want to protect it to the fullest. Just like any other brand, when something untrue is said about it it is then the brand’s job to attack that source and refute those statements. If a politician allows journalists and publishers to write “fake news” about their personal brand, even if it is beneficial to them, then that brand is no longer reliable or authentic. It may be up to the people to research more before developing opinions, but it is up to the politicians to deliver the truth and/or refute the fake news.

Again, thank you for your post!
Akshit Sharma says:

March 21, 2018 at 11:58 pm

Thank you for the post, Kelly. I enjoyed reading it. I agree with your solution but I think that social media sites are already doing that. In fact, they are doing it to benefit themselves and to try and be more appealing to advertisers. I would therefore argue that they should instead commit to be more responsible with their users information and not let it be exploited by advertisers or people who are looking to promote content simply because they are paying a fee. The sole reason such fake news was spread using social media was because the people responsible were able to identify people’s likes and dislikes through social media (since they put it all on there) and were able to target them, add in a snowball effect and viola, you have a large section of the population exposed to news they want to see and hear, albeit it is completely fake. Hence, what it takes to fix this problem will be a commitment from social media outlets to not sell user’s information at all.
David Hayden Lyles says:

March 22, 2018 at 6:28 am

Kelly,

Good job on this post! It is interesting to visualize the level of contact with “fake news” that Facebook users had during the last 4 months of the 2016 presidential election. You are right to ask who is at fault and who should prevent these stories from spreading throughout the media; however, there is no “correct” answer, and thus no surefire solution, to “fake news” at this time.
Similar to the basic principles of our democratic political system, I believe that each individual media platform must produce quality information to the public. When these sources publish inaccurate accounts or display some bias when reporting said accounts, the media’s audience is denied an opportunity to develop opinions and values individually. In a divided political environment, such as in America, “fake news” is almost certain to exist as people try to defame the opposition and deceive the public. Censorship must come from the private media corporations because the government has no authority to infringe on the freedom of speech. These corporations alone can hinder a large portion of existing and future fake news reports.
Your third chart illustrates a crucial initiative in attempt to regulate the influence “fake news” holds in politics. By increasing the media literacy rate, society will be more wise and observant in recognizing inaccurate reports. Publishing fake news reports slowly whittles away at the credibility of media corporations among the general public. Specifically on social media, fake news stories are left untouched which allows them to deceive potential consumers. It is our responsibility as an active member in politics to discern non-verified news and/or a presence of prejudice.
Thanks again for the fascinating post – you ask some great questions and present some convincing arguments.

Hayden

Comments are closed.